Daborn v Bath Tramways Motor Co Ltd
In deciding whether a defendant was negligent, the court must balance the risk against the consequences of not assuming that risk, including the social value of the activity.
Facts
During the Second World War, Mrs Daborn drove an ambulance with the steering wheel on the left hand side, so she could not see behind her or easily signal a right turn. She put a sign on the back saying that there were no signals. When she turned right, a bus that was overtaking her collided with the ambulance. The bus company argued that she had been contributorily negligent in driving such a vehicle.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Daborn had not been negligent. Asquith LJ said that, in determining whether a party is negligent, the standard of care is that of the ordinary prudent man, and a relevant circumstance to take into account is the importance of the end to be served by behaving in this way or in that. As has often been pointed out, if all the trains in this country were restricted to a speed of five miles an hour, there would be fewer accidents, but our national life would be intolerably slowed down. In wartime, it was necessary to use such vehicles, and she had taken reasonable precautions.
Related cases on breach of duty
- Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co (1856) 11 Exch 781
- Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
- Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232
- Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850
- Dunnage v Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673, [2016] QB 639
- Glasgow Corporation v Muir [1943] AC 448
- Latimer v AEC Ltd [1953] AC 643
- Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
